News

Honey Birdette handed 14th ad ban of 2018 for implying model was available for ‘riding’

Infamous lingerie advertiser Honey Birdette has had its 14th ad banned this year, this time for suggesting “the model was available for sexual relations, or ‘riding'”.

The ad, which features a woman in lace lingerie reclining on a chair above the text “Take a Ride”, was banned for employing sexual appeal in a way which is exploitative of an individual.

The image was accompanied with the text “Take a Ride”

A complaint posted to Ad Standards said the ad was “offensive” because of its placement near a cinema and children’s playground and that it commodifies women.

“This objectification and commodification of women enables a culture that promotes violence against women and inequality,” the complaint said.

Responding to this ruling, Honey Birdette said the result was astounding.

“This year we have pulled back the reins and produced our tamest campaign yet to still be sent a complaint.

“Like any other retailer located in a shopping centre thoroughfare, we have the right to display and advertise our current collections in our store front windows,” the advertiser added.

At the same time, the lingerie brand had another ad banned for not treating the issue of sex, sexuality or nudity with sensitivity.

Honey Birdette’s Luna ad

The complaint said the ad features “half a woman’s genitals” shown across a shop front.

“It’s borderline porn. I don’t believe it’s appropriate for my children to be within sight of this so I have to make sure I avoid that place,” the complaint continued.

The ad in question was banned by Ad Standards, as the woman’s pubic region only had sheer material covering it.

“We have purposefully edited our imagery to remove any nudity that would be considered offensive, and with the great respect we as a brand have for our models, would never put anybody’s ‘genitals’ on display. This is not what Honey Birdette stands for,” Honey Birdette said.

This year alone Honey Birdette has been banned for having an in-store poster which was deemed too sexy and subsequently “confronting”not treating the issue of sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity, a campaign which was sexual and violent in nature, an ad which failed to censure a woman’s nipples, posters which were deemed to be “soft-porn” and an ad which was considered as “sexually suggestive”.

ADVERTISEMENT

SUBSCRIBE

Sign up to our free daily update to get the latest in media and marketing